public inbox for [email protected]
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
To: Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]>, [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected],
	[email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/12] io_uring: support true async buffered reads, if file provides it
Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 13:59:38 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

On 5/25/20 1:29 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> On 23/05/2020 21:57, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> If the file is flagged with FMODE_BUF_RASYNC, then we don't have to punt
>> the buffered read to an io-wq worker. Instead we can rely on page
>> unlocking callbacks to support retry based async IO. This is a lot more
>> efficient than doing async thread offload.
>>
>> The retry is done similarly to how we handle poll based retry. From
>> the unlock callback, we simply queue the retry to a task_work based
>> handler.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
>> ---
>>  fs/io_uring.c | 99 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 99 insertions(+)
>>
> ...
>> +
>> +	init_task_work(&rw->task_work, io_async_buf_retry);
>> +	/* submit ref gets dropped, acquire a new one */
>> +	refcount_inc(&req->refs);
>> +	tsk = req->task;
>> +	ret = task_work_add(tsk, &rw->task_work, true);
>> +	if (unlikely(ret)) {
>> +		/* queue just for cancelation */
>> +		init_task_work(&rw->task_work, io_async_buf_cancel);
>> +		tsk = io_wq_get_task(req->ctx->io_wq);
> 
> IIRC, task will be put somewhere around io_free_req(). Then shouldn't here be
> some juggling with reassigning req->task with task_{get,put}()?

Not sure I follow? Yes, we'll put this task again when the request
is freed, but not sure what you mean with juggling?

>> +		task_work_add(tsk, &rw->task_work, true);
>> +	}
>> +	wake_up_process(tsk);
>> +	return 1;
>> +}
> ...
>>  static int io_read(struct io_kiocb *req, bool force_nonblock)
>>  {
>>  	struct iovec inline_vecs[UIO_FASTIOV], *iovec = inline_vecs;
>> @@ -2601,6 +2696,7 @@ static int io_read(struct io_kiocb *req, bool force_nonblock)
>>  	if (!ret) {
>>  		ssize_t ret2;
>>  
>> +retry:
>>  		if (req->file->f_op->read_iter)
>>  			ret2 = call_read_iter(req->file, kiocb, &iter);
>>  		else
>> @@ -2619,6 +2715,9 @@ static int io_read(struct io_kiocb *req, bool force_nonblock)
>>  			if (!(req->flags & REQ_F_NOWAIT) &&
>>  			    !file_can_poll(req->file))
>>  				req->flags |= REQ_F_MUST_PUNT;
>> +			if (io_rw_should_retry(req))
> 
> It looks like a state machine with IOCB_WAITQ and gotos. Wouldn't it be cleaner
> to call call_read_iter()/loop_rw_iter() here directly instead of "goto retry" ?

We could, probably making that part a separate helper then. How about the
below incremental?

> BTW, can this async stuff return -EAGAIN ?

Probably? Prefer not to make any definitive calls on that being possible or
not, as it's sure to disappoint. If it does and IOCB_WAITQ is already set,
then we'll punt to a thread like before.


diff --git a/fs/io_uring.c b/fs/io_uring.c
index a5a4d9602915..669dccd81207 100644
--- a/fs/io_uring.c
+++ b/fs/io_uring.c
@@ -2677,6 +2677,13 @@ static bool io_rw_should_retry(struct io_kiocb *req)
 	return false;
 }
 
+static int __io_read(struct io_kiocb *req, struct iov_iter *iter)
+{
+	if (req->file->f_op->read_iter)
+		return call_read_iter(req->file, &req->rw.kiocb, iter);
+	return loop_rw_iter(READ, req->file, &req->rw.kiocb, iter);
+}
+
 static int io_read(struct io_kiocb *req, bool force_nonblock)
 {
 	struct iovec inline_vecs[UIO_FASTIOV], *iovec = inline_vecs;
@@ -2710,11 +2717,7 @@ static int io_read(struct io_kiocb *req, bool force_nonblock)
 	if (!ret) {
 		ssize_t ret2;
 
-retry:
-		if (req->file->f_op->read_iter)
-			ret2 = call_read_iter(req->file, kiocb, &iter);
-		else
-			ret2 = loop_rw_iter(READ, req->file, kiocb, &iter);
+		ret2 = __io_read(req, &iter);
 
 		/* Catch -EAGAIN return for forced non-blocking submission */
 		if (!force_nonblock || ret2 != -EAGAIN) {
@@ -2729,8 +2732,11 @@ static int io_read(struct io_kiocb *req, bool force_nonblock)
 			if (!(req->flags & REQ_F_NOWAIT) &&
 			    !file_can_poll(req->file))
 				req->flags |= REQ_F_MUST_PUNT;
-			if (io_rw_should_retry(req))
-				goto retry;
+			if (io_rw_should_retry(req)) {
+				ret2 = __io_read(req, &iter);
+				if (ret2 != -EAGAIN)
+					goto out_free;
+			}
 			kiocb->ki_flags &= ~IOCB_WAITQ;
 			return -EAGAIN;
 		}

-- 
Jens Axboe


  reply	other threads:[~2020-05-25 19:59 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-05-23 18:57 [PATCHSET v2 0/12] Add support for async buffered reads Jens Axboe
2020-05-23 18:57 ` [PATCH 01/12] block: read-ahead submission should imply no-wait as well Jens Axboe
2020-05-23 18:57 ` [PATCH 02/12] mm: allow read-ahead with IOCB_NOWAIT set Jens Axboe
2020-05-23 18:57 ` [PATCH 03/12] mm: abstract out wake_page_match() from wake_page_function() Jens Axboe
2020-05-23 18:57 ` [PATCH 04/12] mm: add support for async page locking Jens Axboe
2020-05-23 18:57 ` [PATCH 05/12] mm: support async buffered reads in generic_file_buffered_read() Jens Axboe
2020-05-24 14:05   ` Trond Myklebust
2020-05-24 16:30     ` Jens Axboe
2020-05-24 16:40       ` Jens Axboe
2020-05-24 17:11         ` Trond Myklebust
2020-05-24 17:12           ` Jens Axboe
2020-05-23 18:57 ` [PATCH 06/12] fs: add FMODE_BUF_RASYNC Jens Axboe
2020-05-23 18:57 ` [PATCH 07/12] ext4: flag as supporting buffered async reads Jens Axboe
2020-05-23 18:57 ` [PATCH 08/12] block: flag block devices as supporting IOCB_WAITQ Jens Axboe
2020-05-23 18:57 ` [PATCH 09/12] xfs: flag files as supporting buffered async reads Jens Axboe
2020-05-23 18:57 ` [PATCH 10/12] btrfs: " Jens Axboe
2020-05-23 18:57 ` [PATCH 11/12] mm: add kiocb_wait_page_queue_init() helper Jens Axboe
2020-05-23 18:57 ` [PATCH 12/12] io_uring: support true async buffered reads, if file provides it Jens Axboe
2020-05-25  7:29   ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-05-25 19:59     ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2020-05-26  7:44       ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-05-26 13:50         ` Jens Axboe
2020-05-26  7:38   ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-05-26 13:47     ` Jens Axboe
2020-05-23 19:20 ` [PATCHSET v2 0/12] Add support for async buffered reads Jens Axboe
2020-05-24  9:46   ` Chris Panayis
2020-05-24 19:24     ` Jens Axboe
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2020-05-24 19:21 [PATCHSET v4 " Jens Axboe
2020-05-24 19:22 ` [PATCH 12/12] io_uring: support true async buffered reads, if file provides it Jens Axboe
2020-05-26 19:51 [PATCHSET v5 0/12] Add support for async buffered reads Jens Axboe
2020-05-26 19:51 ` [PATCH 12/12] io_uring: support true async buffered reads, if file provides it Jens Axboe

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox